4 ms·

When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content. That doesn't mean there isn't value in free speech being better valued on ma

by dmix 4y ago

When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content. That doesn't mean there isn't value in free speech being better valued on mainstream platforms.

pavlov 4y ago
> “When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content.” The problem with this theory is that 4chan is older than both Twitter and Facebook. If unmoderated speech created an inherently better platform, surely 4chan would have captured the market a long time ago and cut off commercial alternatives like Craigslist did.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  …or capturing the market would have flooded it in inane speech, rendering it no better (or different) than anywhere else.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  And 4chan got much worse over time, there's no reason it had to be rejects at all. The toxicity was entirely self directed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Didn't 4chan start off largely as castaways from Something Awful? Your point is valid though. 4chan had an enormous amount of time to become the shining star of how great an absolute[1] free speech site could be, but still manages to be a cesspool. This should be a neon hint, but people keep thinking that they're going to invent the one free speech site that doesn't end up toxic. 1: Also as others point out, even 4chan moderates, however lightly.
MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
When given the choice between platforms, why do you think the majority continues to congregate on the more restrictive ones?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  I think the answer here is complicated, but a good portion of it is closely related to 'my friends are here.'
  - CM30 4y ago
    Yeah, it's 'my friends are here' and 'the content I want to read/interact with is here'. It's the same reason people haven't mass switched to Mastodon or other Fediverse services; because the userbase is so much smaller than the likes of Twitter that there's a good chance the people and content they care about isn't available there. Or why so many competitors to popular services fail in general, regardless of their stance on free speech. The network effect is strong, and sometimes even billions of dollars and tons of marketing can't overcome that (see Google+ for example). Would people prefer a free speech orientated alternative? Hard to say, for the same reason as whether they'd prefer a decentralised or federated one; it's the content and users that bring people to a site or service, and the competitors to the popular ones are so much smaller and less active it isn't much of a comparison.
- kristjansson 4y ago
  Why are we here instead of 4chan? Why does everyone that uses email use a spam filter? Direct, unfiltered exposure to the firehouse is at best banal, and at worst disgusting and self-destructive. It's an _awful_ job that ~no one would chose to do for themselves.

by dmix 4y ago

When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content. That doesn't mean there isn't value in free speech being better valued on mainstream platforms.

pavlov 4y ago

> “When only the rejects use the sites of course it's going to be full of bad content.” The problem with this theory is that 4chan is older than both Twitter and Facebook. If unmoderated speech created an inherently better platform, surely 4chan would have captured the market a long time ago and cut off commercial alternatives like Craigslist did.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago
…or capturing the market would have flooded it in inane speech, rendering it no better (or different) than anywhere else.
Dylan16807 4y ago
And 4chan got much worse over time, there's no reason it had to be rejects at all. The toxicity was entirely self directed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 4y ago
Didn't 4chan start off largely as castaways from Something Awful? Your point is valid though. 4chan had an enormous amount of time to become the shining star of how great an absolute[1] free speech site could be, but still manages to be a cesspool. This should be a neon hint, but people keep thinking that they're going to invent the one free speech site that doesn't end up toxic. 1: Also as others point out, even 4chan moderates, however lightly.

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago

When given the choice between platforms, why do you think the majority continues to congregate on the more restrictive ones?

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
I think the answer here is complicated, but a good portion of it is closely related to 'my friends are here.'
- CM30 4y ago
  Yeah, it's 'my friends are here' and 'the content I want to read/interact with is here'. It's the same reason people haven't mass switched to Mastodon or other Fediverse services; because the userbase is so much smaller than the likes of Twitter that there's a good chance the people and content they care about isn't available there. Or why so many competitors to popular services fail in general, regardless of their stance on free speech. The network effect is strong, and sometimes even billions of dollars and tons of marketing can't overcome that (see Google+ for example). Would people prefer a free speech orientated alternative? Hard to say, for the same reason as whether they'd prefer a decentralised or federated one; it's the content and users that bring people to a site or service, and the competitors to the popular ones are so much smaller and less active it isn't much of a comparison.
kristjansson 4y ago
Why are we here instead of 4chan? Why does everyone that uses email use a spam filter? Direct, unfiltered exposure to the firehouse is at best banal, and at worst disgusting and self-destructive. It's an _awful_ job that ~no one would chose to do for themselves.